Ideosphere Forum
From owner-fx-discuss@ideosphere.com Fri Aug  3 12:26:08 2018
Received: from ideosphere.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by ideosphere.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w73GQ8Og018385
	for <fx-discuss-outgoing@ideosphere.com>; Fri, 3 Aug 2018 12:26:08 -0400
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by ideosphere.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id w73GQ8Mq018384
	for fx-discuss-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2018 12:26:08 -0400
Received: from mail-pf1-f169.google.com (mail-pf1-f169.google.com [209.85.210.169])
	by ideosphere.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w73GQ8d9018380
	for <fx-discuss@ideosphere.com>; Fri, 3 Aug 2018 12:26:08 -0400
Received: by mail-pf1-f169.google.com with SMTP id p12-v6so3518815pfh.2
        for <fx-discuss@ideosphere.com>; Fri, 03 Aug 2018 09:26:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
        h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
        bh=ceInTwOZMljhVPij5vqc8VQoKFOOXYp89GUZVNjFw6E=;
        b=sEbt6xv6i7IYT3gzgWpvtN5IAaOyO8AKRNCt/KEv3eMRZHyhAZF7SbfI3Oh0EAxknI
         0zA6HQsWAbWyAu65LBk1AUTuNuyDlZn6u5Z6RxMQPVU2AnDZYWK4hDanPTAayfpozEI/
         7lmgFCqk3VO6nFHZVotyo9EzUT62Zw513Cge7bFfWoRXIKOIEhN6W2Pfq6Uw6HysNXxi
         E8z75iTFZTAw/gLuNxPlOZMkWLwSMxumKknF2Gn986It9wCXWkIzFyUZclwh9K2688F2
         tX5tw7vHh1S4rZy71qBh1iZSdk6G5Os8qXeqmbOF8wAYAftjyz2nIOawE1Je7iZ1eZQ0
         yaoA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
         :message-id:subject:to;
        bh=ceInTwOZMljhVPij5vqc8VQoKFOOXYp89GUZVNjFw6E=;
        b=NjGKX2pUSF5i6kTTQnPH6a3l468agaH1lJZcP+5gNp1ROa75sIiYztPJWIyPUMB2fb
         IQEiDbniLL7nFhRikGfLXGb42aoJB6PBUlpM0yMJcb+6rHMv+miKj/QGk6gUEhRx7oXT
         buSfhtX4lVjSyq8ctC6ZmEIbrHfE0tVfe90F6AdTfqj7iTInIjNPU2Ngk+EjbhUQIdwC
         mf2hT6Vh+H0NYQW+xPM0RJ1P9Sj6M4480vY+hCUZ4PH5M/EFTS8cea1tFs2krYi3wxHx
         lkSfrot+qj3T6A7yaZdeM9T81ZpWfo3n8uxkcIGgVuTUVqvnqu/TDVv0slyCxfP0eisk
         Lmpw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlG01Gq9+7slcVrPG7gYWU+Hp54UU0+8XtWexZ1y4oVdNt8jusDi
	jtQChVB1goOSi+HNn+kJz9sInj4JyUA4HV6g1oG1p2n0
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpc3H0AQ7BrXn9CkUoANsFhJe0SkRcGPuWxwqLAhn1c3bk4r2yicQlK6hCAQR5c0y7lJuvUj6GYuH0QpuWHIZjQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a65:498c:: with SMTP id r12-v6mr4577729pgs.112.1533313567698;
 Fri, 03 Aug 2018 09:26:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAN=DHyZe9XOpGgNFSPMWOZztYK-vVFxH1DNFCf53uj-518Y7UA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1496792950.216304.1533311982370@mail2.virginmedia.com>
In-Reply-To: <1496792950.216304.1533311982370@mail2.virginmedia.com>
From: James Bowery <jabowery@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 11:25:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CAN=DHya8dRewN_waO6v7WN0Vh2ViZSfzx9iaNrHqAi+EBADYKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: fx-discuss: claim Sorb question
To: fx-discuss@ideosphere.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000088348b05728a623c"
Sender: owner-fx-discuss@ideosphere.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: fx-discuss@ideosphere.com

 
 Since I proposed the claim I can answer some of the questions from that
perspective:

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 11:00 AM chrisran.bma e-mail <chrisran.bma@virgin.net>
wrote:

> I am all for more claims.
>
> However, last price of 36 suggests this one isn't 'all but decided' yet.
> Are we better not getting ahead of ourselves or should we clarify matters
> on first claim before drawing up rules for another?
>
The tradeoff is market depth vs market width.  Adding another claim would
increase width but sacrifice depth -- in the sense that a potentially fixed
capital reserve would be spread between 2 claims reducing the depth of each
(and increasing the bid-ask spread hence uncertainty if the probability).
However, if there is insufficient depth in Sorb, it might be due to the
problems mentioned.  Adding a new claim could increase the total capital
reserve but increase the bid-ask spread of Sorb while punishing those
invested in Sorb who don't react quickly enough to the new market.

> There are a number of questions when judging this claim:
>
> 1. It has to be transport, right? So does this mean testing of new
> supersonic jet wouldn't count nor do military flights that are for military
> operations or pilot training?
>
The intent was commercially reasonable transport service, so if there is
"testing" it would have to be done with cargo that is being paid for by a
customer. A Tesla roadster wouldn't count.

> The suggestion of "standard industry surveys" seems to me to point to
> military operation and training not counting. In addition, we aren't likely
> to get details of military flight easily or more likely at all.
>

That's a good point and I didn't envision that kind of transport unless it
was provided by commercial carriers.  The military does patronize
commercial carriers as well as running its own transport fleet.


> 2. What is Mach 2.5 in space?
>
That's just the operational definition of "high mach".  It would not be
practical in space.

> 3. Presumably discarded parts like rocket fairings don't count. Guess
> there are lots of reason for this: The flight is orbital even if the
> fairings don't go that far, the transport is of the rocket's payload, the
> purpose of the fairings is protection of the payload not transport, the
> fairing flight might count but there is zero payload with them, and/or the
> fairings are not a vehicle in their own right having own means of
> propulsion. (Just trying to understand the rules here.)
>
Again, the question to ask is:  "Are the customers paying for the delivery
of the cargo?"  If the "cargo" is a fairing, and the customer wants to take
delivery of the fairing, then it counts.  Otherwise, it doesn't.


> 4: "majority of the distance is covered without benefit of locally
> available gasses as the primary propulsion reaction mass" What does this
> mean? Does it mean any rocket containing its own fuel qualifies even if it
> flies at low level? Or does it have to be flying above something like 26Km
> (I am using this as approx height
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft) suggests might be
> possible)?
>
Skylon is a queer duck but even so the wording is adequate so long as
"primary" is taken to mean ">50%".  In other words, if Skylon delivers
cargo between points on Earth, divide the on-board fuel consumed by the
total reaction mass coming out the back end of the engine during flight.
If it is less than 50% then it falls under high mach air transport and
that's true even if it flies to the moon and back.


> 5 Is niobium the judge still around, and if not who decides issues such as
> above? Is it just the new judge whoever that turns out to be?
>
> 6. Should a new judge be needed should they be appointed before or after a
> discussion such as this?
>
> Plenty to ponder?
>
> Regards
>
> Chris Randles
>
> crandles 7886
>
> Disclosure I hold +1425 in this claim.
>
>
>
>
> On 03 August 2018 at 15:38 James Bowery <jabowery@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> *Author: * Neal Gafter <neal@gafter.com>
> Date: Wed May 27, 2009 06:19 pm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *The claim Sorb is about whether "Suborbital transportation will
> exceedhigh-mach air transportation by the year 2020".If they're both zero,
> I presume this will be judged FALSE/0 (i.e., zero doesnot exceed zero). Am
> I correct?Regards,Neal*
>
> WSJ April 2018:  Supersonic Flight Prepares for Takeoff (Again)
> <https://www.wsj.com/articles/supersonic-flight-prepares-for-takeoff-again-1522850332>
>
> Defense News August 2018: One possible job for SpaceX’s BFR rocket?
> Taking the Air Force’s cargo in and out of space.
> <http://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/08/02/one-possible-job-for-spacexs-bfr-taking-the-air-forces-cargo-in-and-out-of-space/>
>
> One possible job for SpaceX’s BFR rocket? Taking the Air Force’s cargo in
> and out of space.
> “Think about this. Thirty minutes, 150 metric tons, [and] less than the
> cost of a C-5,” he continued. In comparison, it would take the service’s
> cargo aircraft take anywhere from eight to 10 hours to get to the other
> side of the world.
>
>
> This is turning into a real problem in more two ways:
>
> 1) As Neal points out, there is a distinct possibility the both numbers
> could be "judged" 0.
> 2) There is a distinct possibility that 2021 will see non-zero numbers
> reported.
>
> Both of these problems could be addressed by a new claim pushing the year
> out to, say, 2025, or by a scaled claim of some sort.
>
>

Back to regular message display

All trademarks, copyrights, and messages on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Forum: Copyright (c) 2000-2001 Javien Inc All rights reserved. Distributed under the GPL